Graham M Tooker1, Hong Truong2, Peter A Pinto2, Minhaj M Siddiqui1. 1. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MA. 2. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Targeted magnetic resonance imaging/ ultrasound (MRI/US) guided biopsy is an emerging technology that has the potential to change standard of care for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. This technology is rapidly proliferating, however quantitative analysis of these trends are unavailable. The objective of this study was to assess urologist opinions regarding implementing MRI/ US imaging into their practices. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed using research electronic data capture and completed by 291 practicing urologists within the United States registered through the American Urological Association. The survey gathered information regarding demographics, changes in MRI use, opinions on targeted MRI/US guided biopsy, and barriers to implementation. The survey results were analyzed using ANOVA. RESULTS: Practice setting and geographic region were signifIcantly associated with implementation of MRI/US guided biopsy. Total 72% of urologists in academic centers report using MRI/US targeted biopsy, compared to 38% in solo private practice. In the northeast 68% of urologists report using MRI/US biopsy, compared to 44% in the western United States. CONCLUSION: While there are some reservations about employing MRI/US guided biopsy as standard of care in all prostate biopsies, the data suggests urologists support its use, and are making efforts to introduce targeted MRI/US guided biopsy into their practice. Regional and practice setting variations exist in implementation.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Targeted magnetic resonance imaging/ ultrasound (MRI/US) guided biopsy is an emerging technology that has the potential to change standard of care for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. This technology is rapidly proliferating, however quantitative analysis of these trends are unavailable. The objective of this study was to assess urologist opinions regarding implementing MRI/ US imaging into their practices. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed using research electronic data capture and completed by 291 practicing urologists within the United States registered through the American Urological Association. The survey gathered information regarding demographics, changes in MRI use, opinions on targeted MRI/US guided biopsy, and barriers to implementation. The survey results were analyzed using ANOVA. RESULTS: Practice setting and geographic region were signifIcantly associated with implementation of MRI/US guided biopsy. Total 72% of urologists in academic centers report using MRI/US targeted biopsy, compared to 38% in solo private practice. In the northeast 68% of urologists report using MRI/US biopsy, compared to 44% in the western United States. CONCLUSION: While there are some reservations about employing MRI/US guided biopsy as standard of care in all prostate biopsies, the data suggests urologists support its use, and are making efforts to introduce targeted MRI/US guided biopsy into their practice. Regional and practice setting variations exist in implementation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Guided biopsy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate neoplasms; Survey
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Adil Ouzzane; Raphaele Renard-Penna; François Marliere; Pierre Mozer; Jonathan Olivier; Johann Barkatz; Philippe Puech; Arnauld Villers Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Marko Brock; Björn Löppenberg; Florian Roghmann; Alexandré Pelzer; Martin Dickmann; Wolfgang Becker; Philipp Martin-Seidel; Florian Sommerer; Lena Schenk; Rein Jüri Palisaar; Joachim Noldus; Christian von Bodman Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Xiaosong Meng; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Neil Mendhiratta; Michael Fenstermaker; Richard Huang; James S Wysock; Marc A Bjurlin; Susan Marshall; Fang-Ming Deng; Ming Zhou; Jonathan Melamed; William C Huang; Herbert Lepor; Samir S Taneja Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Geoffrey A Sonn; Edward Chang; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J Margolis; Malu Macairan; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-03-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Grace L Lu-Yao; Peter C Albertsen; Dirk F Moore; Weichung Shih; Yong Lin; Robert S DiPaola; Michael J Barry; Anthony Zietman; Michael O'Leary; Elizabeth Walker-Corkery; Siu-Long Yao Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Soroush Rais-Bahrami; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Baris Turkbey; Lambros Stamatakis; Jennifer Logan; Anthony N Hoang; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Srinivas Vourganti; Hong Truong; Jochen Kruecker; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Emanuel Darius Cata; Charles Van Praet; Iulia Andras; Pierre Kadula; Razvan Ognean; Maximilian Buzoianu; Daniel Leucuta; Cosmin Caraiani; Attila Tamas-Szora; Karel Decaestecker; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2021-05
Authors: Silvia D Chang; Daniel J A Margolis; Baris Turkbey; Abigail A Arnold; Sadhna Verma Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 6.582
Authors: Joel Andersson; Thorgerdur Palsdottir; Anna Lantz; Markus Aly; Henrik Grönberg; Lars Egevad; Martin Eklund; Tobias Nordström Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-08-29
Authors: Joseph M Norris; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Clare Allen; Rhys Ball; Alex Freeman; Maneesh Ghei; Alex Kirkham; Hayley C Whitaker; Daniel Kelly; Mark Emberton Journal: Methods Protoc Date: 2020-03-28